Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Critics take aim at fast neutrinos
Lack of energy trail suggests finding was miscalculated
A+ A- Text Size

Lack of energy trail suggests finding was miscalculated

By Devin Powell

Web edition: October 18, 2011
Print edition: November 5, 2011; Vol.180 #10 (p. 10)

A new study puts the brakes on faster-than-light neutrinos.

In September, a group at Italy’s OPERA experiment reportedly clocked neutrinos traveling the 730 kilometers from CERN in Switzerland to Italy’s underground Gran Sasso National Laboratory about 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have covered that distance in a vacuum (SN: 10/22/11, p. 18). But if this were true, most of the neutrinos would have shed energy en route, a new analysis by Boston University physicists suggests.

OPERA should have detected this radiation, say the physicists, if its claims are to be believed. It didn’t.

“I would be ecstatic to see some kind of new physics coming from this experiment,” says Andrew Cohen, a theoretical physicist who, with Nobel Prize–winner Sheldon Glashow, reports the new finding in an upcoming Physical Review Letters. “It’s just hard to accommodate that, given this [lack of] radiation.”

To follow up on this idea, a second neutrino experiment at Gran Sasso called ICARUS searched for signs of this radiation and found none, another group reports online October 17 at arXiv.org.

A similar type of energy loss has long been studied in water and other materials in which light travels slower than it does in empty space. Particles that travel faster than light in these substances give off flashes of energy known as Cerenkov radiation. Cerenkov detectors exploit this effect to spot such particles, including those created by cosmic rays.

But Cohen and Glashow’s paper is the first to extend this idea to neutrinos allegedly outpacing light in a vacuum. The standard model of particle physics dictates that they too must give up energy, spitting out pairs of electrons and positrons, says Cohen.

Exotic theories do exist that allow faster-than-light neutrinos to hold on to their energy. But the lack of this signature adds support to the prevailing opinion that the OPERA team has been misled by some unaccounted-for uncertainty in their measurements.

“We’re pretty much convinced that the experiment is wrong,” says Glashow. “But I don’t think anyone has identified the error, if there is an error, as of yet.”

Gilles Henri, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Institute of Planetary Science and Astrophysics in Grenoble, France, wonders whether fluctuations in the neutrino beam may be to blame. In a paper posted online October 2 at arXiv.org, he suggests that some neutrinos in the crowd that traveled to Italy may have started their journey earlier than thought, throwing off the average speed calculated for the bunch.

The two atomic clocks used by the OPERA team to time their neutrinos have also been scrutinized. Carlo Contaldi, a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, suggests that Einstein’s general theory of relativity could have caused the clocks to tick at different rates — thanks to gravity pulling harder on the clock located at the start of the neutrino’s journey in Switzerland than on its partner, deep underground in Italy. To check his idea, Contaldi is waiting on the OPERA team to explain the details of their experiment more fully.

He’s not the only one.

“Until further details come out as to how they did the various bits of their experiment,” says Contaldi, “it’s not clear how to proceed.”

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

A. Cohen and S. Glashow. New constraints on neutrino velocities. Physical Review Letters, in press, 2011. [Go to]

C. Contaldi. The OPERA neutrino velocity result and the synchronization of clocks. arXiv:1109.6160. September 29, 2011. Available online: [Go to]

G. Henri. A simple explanation of OPERA results without strange physics. arXiv:1110.2039. October 2, 2011. Available online: [Go to]

ICARUS Collaboration. A search for the analogue to Cherenkov radiation by high energy neutrinos at superluminal speeds in ICARUS. arXiv:1110.3763. October 17, 2011. Available online: [Go to]


D. Powell. Neutrinos seen to fly faster than light. Science News, Vol. 180, October 22, 2011, p. 18. Available online: [Go to]

Comments (8)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • 60 nanoseconds over 730km means that the neutrinos are supposedly arriving about 5.8m (19ft) before a light beam would. That's an awfully small error over that distance, even with GPS. I wonder if the Italians have triple-checked the distance.
    Doug Finley Doug Finley
    Oct. 19, 2011 at 9:11am
  • The researcher­s may have only measured the speed of light more accurately using their measurement of the neutrino beam, which has been assumed to travel at light speed.

    Countless previous experiments have shown that particles gain mass as they near the light barrier. As they get very close to that barrier, the masses of the particles rise exponentially. Even the power of a supernova can only accelerate particles close to, but not at light speed. If neutrinos have a tiny amount of mass as has been suggested, then traveling at or above light speed should cause the neutrino beam to become infinitely massive, which is not what was observed.
    Stacy Fisher Stacy Fisher
    Oct. 19, 2011 at 10:30am
  • So Standard Theory "dictates" that there be a weak-force/vacume analog to the radiation emitted when an electrically charged particle moves through a physical medium at speeds greater than light in that medium. News to me, but o.k. Interesting THEORY.

    But then the article notes: "OPERA should have detected this radiation, say the physicists, if its claims are to be believed. It didn’t."

    and

    "A second neutrino experiment at Gran Sasso called ICARUS searched for signs of this radiation and found none, another group reports online October 17 at arXiv.org."

    The implication being that failure to detect this radiation proves the CERN/OPERA muon-neutrinos never were moving faster than light. Right?

    No, wait, I'm jumping the gun - a few paragraghs later the article states: "The lack of this signature adds support to the prevailing opinion that the OPERA team has been misled by some unaccounted-for uncertainty in their measurements."

    Prevailing opinion!? I'm sorry, I thought this was PHYSICS. I must have logged on to a political or religious website by mistake.

    By the way, someone should notify the muon-neutrinos that they are now in violation of two theories! Bad neutrinos...

    Steven Dinowitz Steven Dinowitz
    Oct. 20, 2011 at 9:32am
  • It is worth pointing out that the timing given by the OPERA people depends on their custom FPGA having a very reliably constant propagation delay. It would be a little strange for a device such as this to have that property.
    Jesse Ziser Jesse Ziser
    Oct. 20, 2011 at 9:32am
  • When the neutrinos arrive in Italy, is there any way to reflect them, or evidence of their arrival, back to CERN to measure the return trip? Is a one-way trip shorter than half a round trip?
    John Moes John Moes
    Oct. 31, 2011 at 9:59am
  • What if anything did the Gran Sasso or Soudan Mine experimenters do to compensate for curvature of the Earth? In Soudan, MN the GPS measurement has to be taken at ground level not down the shaft (RF cannot penetrate the rock) and presumably the same applies at Gran Sasso (or even CERN & Batavia, IL). The surface distance from Illinois to Northern Minnesota is close to that between CERN & Gran Sasso and GPS readings at the surface are 2 points on a spheroid. A particle moving from one point to another _beneath_ the surface is taking a shortcut (secant) of that spheroid which is always geometrically shorter than the arc of the surface.
    Ray Bryan Ray Bryan
    Nov. 2, 2011 at 9:15am
  • After reading this and my copy ofNewsandAnalysis byEdwinCartlidgepage12Vol24 No11;I join those whoare certian it was ethical to publish the information There are TWO types of quantum theory;one is politically under pressure from the lomger history of quantum scientsists.These new sort are sure that groups of
    quantum can be trusted.iepage 12 far right column says;'temporal distribution of protons one end of flight matched to the temporal distribution of neutrinss the other'
    Morally the CERN org is wrog to expect the world to continue to agree to a standard which is failing ie the sole partcile concept preceding energy theory Higgs has failed surely you raelise that we cannot continue to agree that the particle ie ANY isolated partcile has to be the a priori datum afore as staement is made. the statement is fair and legal This high ground attitude of the larger group of world scientsists makes me sick.
    grafspey grafspey
    Nov. 7, 2011 at 9:16am
  • Each of these are interesting concerns, however the one that seems the most reasonable is in the article "Faster than Light Concern – Detecting Only 1 Neutrino per Hour" It says they need to increase the number of "hits" every hour by several magnitudes to insure that they are measuring the same particle(s).
    Marco Marco
    Nov. 10, 2011 at 9:51am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us